Ontology, terminology, essence..
January 21st 2007 17:12
Hi all,
Since in this post we'll be talking about beings, it's time to get a little deeper into ontology. To start it i'll need to add some definitions in my terminology. I should have done this before, but it's quite boring, and it needs the knowledge presented in the last posts. So:
- I'll define "beings" as everything that can interpret (project) the noumena, generate a phenomena in it's "mind" (mathematicaly speaking, in it's base), and respond to the facts it can interpret.
- A fact is, as defined by Wittgeinstein, a "picture" of noumena projected into the "mind" of a "being".
- I'll say that a "thing" "exists" if it can be interpreted (projected) by a "being". In 2 items i'll define "thing".
- I'll call "object" anything that "exists", but can't repond to any facts. This definition can be attacked, since we can find a "being" that responds in a way another "being" can't interpret. I mean, you can't interpret the "facts" produced by bacteria, but they are still "being's". So, one can divide in it's "mind" the groups of "beings" and "objects", but maybe it won't be the same group as for another "being".
- "Thing" = "objects" plus "beings"
I'll talk now about "intentionality" and the concepts of "essence" and "accident". I have to do this to prepare you to the next post, where i'll be analising the importance and way of analising "beings" defined in the 20th century by people like Brentano, Husserl, Sartre, Heidegger.
A first concept to talk about is intentionallity. In Brentano's work he defines that the interpreted "facts" exist in function of a "thing", that would be in the main imporant actor in the fact interpreted. Actually we can expand it saying that the the main actor of a "fact" can be the "fact" (like in the example of the car accident, the main actor is the accident itself), and actually is allways the "fact".
Little example: if you look at your telephone, you'll be interpreting it and placing in your "mind". For Brentando, the main actor of this would be the telephone, but it is actually the telephone in the specific time, clima, usage, etc, it is. I mean, you're not interpreting the telehpone, you're intepreting a "fact": the fact of your telephone in front of you, in the specific second you did it, with it's batterie charged or not....
So, the intentionallity thing gets a little bit more to Sartre's way of seeing it. He says that this main actor of the "fact" is allways present. It's true, but it is a pleonasm: to interpret a "fact", we have to have one! So these ideas of intentionality turn around a simple pleonasm...
Now i'll attack the concept of "essence" and "accidents". In two ways, i'll first comment on the relation between them, than talk about "essence" itself.
Stoiciens state that in "things" we have 2 separate parts: the "essence" and the "accident". They state that "essence" is the most important part and characteristics of the "thing", while "accident" is the ensemble of it's less important characteristics.
Normally they divide these 2 cathegories to say that "essence" keeps the "reasons of being" of each "being". It means, the "essence" of a lamp is to produce light, and so we go. The accident define how the lamp is (red, big, etc.).
In this point we have already something that depends on the interpretation of the "being" that is analising the lamp. For a person that has no electricity and has never seen a lamp, he will probably see the "essence" of the lamp as a different thing. Actually, he will probably find it useless...
So, the conclusion i get is that there is no point to state that something has a "reason of being". This is completelty related to the interpretation of the "facts" each "being" has. So there is no interest in studing the "essence" of "things". You have to focus on the "thing", and then you may (but you don't have to) figure out a reason for it. To give a quick phrase on this, i would say:
"The facts may have a reason, but nothing happens for a reason."
Let me explain the phrase (if i don't want to be misunderstood, i have to be as clear as possible...): "The facts may have a reason" says that everything that happens can have a "root cause", that we can't get to it, but can in a certain way predict. "Nothing happens for a reason" says that everything that happens will possibly happen for a reason in one "being"'s "mind", but it can have a completely different reason in another.
Example: If a lightning crashes next to your house, you can possibly explain it physically with some laws that are not exactly truth but are close. But after the lightning, maybe your sister will think that it is God saying she should leave her boyfriend, while your mother will think that this is telling her not to get out today, and your father will think it's a discharge of electricity that reduces the differente between the tensions of the clouds and the earth...conclusion, there is no such thing as "essence".
After quite an acid post, i leave prepared for the next one...hehe
Cheers, Uula
Since in this post we'll be talking about beings, it's time to get a little deeper into ontology. To start it i'll need to add some definitions in my terminology. I should have done this before, but it's quite boring, and it needs the knowledge presented in the last posts. So:
- I'll define "beings" as everything that can interpret (project) the noumena, generate a phenomena in it's "mind" (mathematicaly speaking, in it's base), and respond to the facts it can interpret.
- A fact is, as defined by Wittgeinstein, a "picture" of noumena projected into the "mind" of a "being".
- I'll say that a "thing" "exists" if it can be interpreted (projected) by a "being". In 2 items i'll define "thing".
- I'll call "object" anything that "exists", but can't repond to any facts. This definition can be attacked, since we can find a "being" that responds in a way another "being" can't interpret. I mean, you can't interpret the "facts" produced by bacteria, but they are still "being's". So, one can divide in it's "mind" the groups of "beings" and "objects", but maybe it won't be the same group as for another "being".
- "Thing" = "objects" plus "beings"
I'll talk now about "intentionality" and the concepts of "essence" and "accident". I have to do this to prepare you to the next post, where i'll be analising the importance and way of analising "beings" defined in the 20th century by people like Brentano, Husserl, Sartre, Heidegger.
A first concept to talk about is intentionallity. In Brentano's work he defines that the interpreted "facts" exist in function of a "thing", that would be in the main imporant actor in the fact interpreted. Actually we can expand it saying that the the main actor of a "fact" can be the "fact" (like in the example of the car accident, the main actor is the accident itself), and actually is allways the "fact".
Little example: if you look at your telephone, you'll be interpreting it and placing in your "mind". For Brentando, the main actor of this would be the telephone, but it is actually the telephone in the specific time, clima, usage, etc, it is. I mean, you're not interpreting the telehpone, you're intepreting a "fact": the fact of your telephone in front of you, in the specific second you did it, with it's batterie charged or not....
So, the intentionallity thing gets a little bit more to Sartre's way of seeing it. He says that this main actor of the "fact" is allways present. It's true, but it is a pleonasm: to interpret a "fact", we have to have one! So these ideas of intentionality turn around a simple pleonasm...
Now i'll attack the concept of "essence" and "accidents". In two ways, i'll first comment on the relation between them, than talk about "essence" itself.
Stoiciens state that in "things" we have 2 separate parts: the "essence" and the "accident". They state that "essence" is the most important part and characteristics of the "thing", while "accident" is the ensemble of it's less important characteristics.
Normally they divide these 2 cathegories to say that "essence" keeps the "reasons of being" of each "being". It means, the "essence" of a lamp is to produce light, and so we go. The accident define how the lamp is (red, big, etc.).
In this point we have already something that depends on the interpretation of the "being" that is analising the lamp. For a person that has no electricity and has never seen a lamp, he will probably see the "essence" of the lamp as a different thing. Actually, he will probably find it useless...
So, the conclusion i get is that there is no point to state that something has a "reason of being". This is completelty related to the interpretation of the "facts" each "being" has. So there is no interest in studing the "essence" of "things". You have to focus on the "thing", and then you may (but you don't have to) figure out a reason for it. To give a quick phrase on this, i would say:
"The facts may have a reason, but nothing happens for a reason."
Let me explain the phrase (if i don't want to be misunderstood, i have to be as clear as possible...): "The facts may have a reason" says that everything that happens can have a "root cause", that we can't get to it, but can in a certain way predict. "Nothing happens for a reason" says that everything that happens will possibly happen for a reason in one "being"'s "mind", but it can have a completely different reason in another.
Example: If a lightning crashes next to your house, you can possibly explain it physically with some laws that are not exactly truth but are close. But after the lightning, maybe your sister will think that it is God saying she should leave her boyfriend, while your mother will think that this is telling her not to get out today, and your father will think it's a discharge of electricity that reduces the differente between the tensions of the clouds and the earth...conclusion, there is no such thing as "essence".
After quite an acid post, i leave prepared for the next one...hehe
Cheers, Uula
| 47 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
